Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: canon optics?  (Read 24793 times)

Kagetsu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
    • Refractive Labs
canon optics?
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2008, 11:35:57 pm »

I have to say, I've not had anything to fault as far as Canon service is concerned, and to add, I'm not a CPS member here... requirements are simply too high for me, even though technically I meet all of them bar one.

Even under normal service conditions, they've been open and quick with turnaround. Usually within a week, for a simple lens calibration, though I did have a 16-35mm that took 3 1/2 weeks due to a major issue with one of the compound lenses assemblies splitting inside. Even then the lens was still in warrenty, but they made sure I knew what was going on at every stage.

I suppose here in Australia we're used to being given the ring around, but I've been satisfied with their service. Over all I've not been unhappy with their optics. I really enjoy my 50 f/1.2, and my 70-200L 2.8 IS is still my favourite lens, and most used.
My 16-35 however, has gone (I had the first version)... Corner performance was simply too low, and always had been on my 5D, and was simply exagerated too much on the 1Ds III. Even a problem on a full frame print. I don't need perfect (I actually have a 24-70 which is brillaint wide open, with a little red fringing on the outer edges), sharp with minimal distortion. I'm very happy with that performance.

I have however, been underwhelmed with a lot of their cheaper lenses. For me, I just want a lens that performs... If it doesn't, it goes.
Logged

Chris_Brown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
  • Smile dammit!
    • Chris Brown Photography
canon optics?
« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2008, 08:54:27 am »

Quote
L lenses, what does the L stand for?
"Luxury", as noted on page 15 of this Canon document.
Logged
~ CB

CJL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
    • http://www.imageswest.ca
canon optics?
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2008, 09:28:03 am »

Quote
Not sure how different it is oop north, but this hasn't been my experience. I do repair work for the last mom 'n pop full service pro oriented camera store in Northern California and spend two days a week processing all their incoming repairs. Even the Joe Blow repairs come back from Canon Service usually within a week or two. The only hold up is the occasional part back order. Nikon is a different story and their part backorder rate runs about 30%. Canon's redo rate is a little less than Nikon's and we spend a lot less time arguing about warranty status. Heck, Canon has even fixed stuff a couple of months outside the timeframe under warranty.

The people who've used Canon USA's Pro Service seem quite satisfied.

Unfortunately, it's a totally different story with Canon Canada.  I'm a CPS member, and even with me dropping the gear off at the regional service centre, getting a lens calibrated was always a six to eight week ordeal, and they rarely ever get anything right the first time.  I think they borrowed a page from the old Chrysler strategy... hold onto the gear for a few weeks and then return it to the customer without doing anything to it... repeat this process enough times, and eventually the customer will get fed up and go away, and you don't have to waste perfectly good money providing warranty service.  

By comparison, Nikon Canada's typical turnaround time is 24-48 hours (and I'm not an NPS member yet...), and the work is done professionally and competently - the first time.  I'm sure it's a lot easier for Nikon to provide this high level of service since their technicians aren't burdened with a mountain of defective gear... most likely because, unlike Canon,  Nikon actually has some sort of quality control program in place.  
Logged

lovell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
    • http://
canon optics?
« Reply #43 on: August 26, 2008, 01:05:31 pm »

Quote
Canon certainly sets the standard... for dismal quality control - and their apathetic "pro" service is even worse.

They do make some very good lenses, such as the 35mm f1.4L, 85mm f1.2L, 135mm f2L, 200 f2.8L, and all of the big white "L" lenses are excellent (except the 100-400L which must have lens elements supplied by Coca Cola, the 70-200 f4L (non-IS) which is plagued by back-fcous problems, and the 300 f4L which is only a so-so performer - perhaps it was the marketing department, rather than the design people, that decided to give these latter three lenses the "L" designation...  )

The 17-40 f4L is decent if you can find one that doesn't have de-centered elements (a problem which is unfortunately all too common with Canon lenses).  The 16-35 f2.8L is a forgettable lens, and the revised version is only slightly better.  The 24-70 f2.8L is okay (except for the rather severe light falloff), but it certainly doesn't compare with the Nikon AF-S 24-70 f2.8.  I liked the 180 f3.5L macro for closeups, but it wasn't too sharp for distance work.  I owned about 6 different copies of the 24mm f3.5L TS-E; I really like that focal length and loved the tilt-shift features, but it has the worst CA of any lens I've ever used, and it wasn't exceptionally sharp either.

I've owned literally dozens and dozens of Canon L lenses over that last 15 years - typically having to go through two, three, or more copies of each to find one that didn't have problems (more than 10 copies in the case of the 100-400L IS, without finding one that was capable of delivering sharp images).  Some of these lenses probably could have been made functional by having Canon calibrate them to the cameras I was using, but with typical "pro rush" turnaround times of 6-8 weeks, and usually having to send them back two or three times to get the work done, that didn't seem like a viable option either.

I've amassed a collection of about 20 Nikon lenses and several camera bodies in the couple of years since I started the switch away from Canon, and have yet to see a single problem of any kind... certainly a refreshing change. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Gosh, you seem to have made so much trouble for yourself.  All you had to do with a suspect lens was send it to Canon for calibration, and the turn around is just 2-3 days with the Irvine shop.  The only exception to this advise, was my canon 50L...no amount of calibration will mitigate it's short comings, but this lens is the only exception.   The other 14 L lenses are excellent, and have no issues that could not be mitigated with a free and fast turn-around calibration at Canon.

And don't kid yourself, for every Canon complaint of QA issues, you will find same with Nikon...just hang out in the Nikon forums if you don't believe me.

However to be fair, I will say that the QA for all the major makes seem to have suffered over the years.

Part of the issue too, is that since digital, issues of sharpness and resolution are found easier, and are more obvious then back in the film-only SLR days.  Digital seems more demanding in those regards...the ability to zoom into on the screen, etc....
Logged
After composition, everything else is secondary--Alfred Steiglitz, NYC, 1927.

I'm not afraid of death.  I just don't want to be there when it happens--Woody Allen, Annie Hall, '70s

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1276
canon optics?
« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2008, 09:14:03 pm »

Quote
Part of the issue too, is that since digital, issues of sharpness and resolution are found easier, and are more obvious then back in the film-only SLR days.  Digital seems more demanding in those regards...the ability to zoom into on the screen, etc....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can lead to extreme pixel peeping that overpowers the actual photography.

I don't know about you, but in my early days I have sometimes shot with not so great equipment. And you still could get great shots out of it.

Today, there are many, absolutely perfect looking photographs around. One taken out of a series of possibly hundreds, then intensely processed.

And then dropped into a magazine, just like that, as if it had been so easy.

The risk of taking perfection for granted.


PS: many of the classic, great photographs were shot with lenses that had not coating. And the glass quality...
« Last Edit: August 29, 2008, 09:21:12 pm by The View »
Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.

schrodingerscat

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 374
canon optics?
« Reply #45 on: September 03, 2008, 03:04:55 pm »

Quote
Unfortunately, it's a totally different story with Canon Canada.  I'm a CPS member, and even with me dropping the gear off at the regional service centre, getting a lens calibrated was always a six to eight week ordeal, and they rarely ever get anything right the first time.  I think they borrowed a page from the old Chrysler strategy... hold onto the gear for a few weeks and then return it to the customer without doing anything to it... repeat this process enough times, and eventually the customer will get fed up and go away, and you don't have to waste perfectly good money providing warranty service.   

By comparison, Nikon Canada's typical turnaround time is 24-48 hours (and I'm not an NPS member yet...), and the work is done professionally and competently - the first time.  I'm sure it's a lot easier for Nikon to provide this high level of service since their technicians aren't burdened with a mountain of defective gear... most likely because, unlike Canon,  Nikon actually has some sort of quality control program in place. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Did you try bitching to management at the Canon service center? Letting them and management at corporate HQ know that your experience is costing them customers gets their attention.

The main thing Nikon's, and their contract shops, technician's aren't burdened with is the sheer number of repairs that inundate Canon. We'll see how this plays out as time goes by. Of course all the photogs who use Nikon gear due to sweetheart deals like the SI users enjoy will benefit from a level of service not available to the average owner.

One does wonder about the general tone in your posts, what with the assertion that Canon applies no QC in either manufacturing or service and Nikon walks on water. There does seem to be an agenda lurking in the background, as both statements are unsupportable.
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
canon optics?
« Reply #46 on: September 03, 2008, 03:46:36 pm »

Quote
And don't kid yourself, for every Canon complaint of QA issues, you will find same with Nikon...just hang out in the Nikon forums if you don't believe me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have not noticed that. It seems commonplace for Canon users to complain about lenses needing 'calibrating' (presumably realigning elements) whereas I hardly ever hear such things discussed in Nikon forums. Yes I am a Nikon user, and this is not scientific. There may be reasons that mask discussion of Nikon issues. That is not too say that my Nikon lenses are perfect. The 28mm F2.8 AFD was awful, but I think it was a bad design, rather than a bad sample.
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1921
canon optics?
« Reply #47 on: September 03, 2008, 11:44:48 pm »

Some of the softness of lenses is in technique, not in the glass, with the high-end digital cameras. I've spent the last few days shooting street stuff at the Republican convention and it's amazing how the sharpness improves when I'm not nervous. 8-)

Using D3, with 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 f2.8 glass.
Logged

lovell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
    • http://
canon optics?
« Reply #48 on: September 16, 2008, 12:32:54 pm »

Quote
Can lead to extreme pixel peeping that overpowers the actual photography.

I don't know about you, but in my early days I have sometimes shot with not so great equipment. And you still could get great shots out of it.

Today, there are many, absolutely perfect looking photographs around. One taken out of a series of possibly hundreds, then intensely processed.

And then dropped into a magazine, just like that, as if it had been so easy.

The risk of taking perfection for granted.
PS: many of the classic, great photographs were shot with lenses that had not coating. And the glass quality...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

All this bashing of pixel peeping.  Funny, because it would be very, very foolish to not pixel peep the images taken with a new lens....there should never be any "shame" on pixel peeping.  And if pixel peeping keeps one from doing real photography, it's not beceause of pixel peeping...it's because one was never into photography to begin with....aka---> Gear Heads.

And yea, in the good old days they shoot master pieces with so-so lenses, but what waters down your point is that in those days they had no choice!  Don't you think those great masters used the best they could get?  Of course they did!
Logged
After composition, everything else is secondary--Alfred Steiglitz, NYC, 1927.

I'm not afraid of death.  I just don't want to be there when it happens--Woody Allen, Annie Hall, '70s

NigelC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
canon optics?
« Reply #49 on: September 16, 2008, 01:29:31 pm »

Absolutely dreadful - worst lenses on the planet - everyone knows that which is why you won't get a penny for them secondhand. I would be happy, as an act of charity, to provide a home for a 16-35 II, a 90TS and a 135/2L, which are probably the very worst.
Logged

BFoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
    • Brad's blog
canon optics?
« Reply #50 on: September 16, 2008, 02:45:49 pm »

I don't think anyone mentioned this (sorry if i missed your point) but an extremely important factor, and one that does requires pixel peeping, is that most pro's are now shooting RAW digital capture.

The loss of apparent sharpness due to RAW capture is well documented, and the requirement for capture sharpening is one that it seems a lot of people still don't grasp.

Maybe this is playing a perceptive role.

i have canon glass and love it. If i had to grade them on a scale of 1-10

16-35L = 8
50mm 1.4 = 8
24-105L =9
70-200L 2.8 =9.5

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
canon optics?
« Reply #51 on: September 16, 2008, 04:43:56 pm »

Quote
I don't think anyone mentioned this (sorry if i missed your point) but an extremely important factor, and one that does requires pixel peeping, is that most pro's are now shooting RAW digital capture.

The loss of apparent sharpness due to RAW capture is well documented, and the requirement for capture sharpening is one that it seems a lot of people still don't grasp.

Maybe this is playing a perceptive role.

i have canon glass and love it. If i had to grade them on a scale of 1-10

16-35L = 8
50mm 1.4 = 8
24-105L =9
70-200L 2.8 =9.5
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are not losing sharpness due to raw capture. Raw capture is how the file looks without any in-camera sharpening. JPEGs get sharpened as part of the processing happening in the camera. So it is normal for a JPEG to look sharper than a raw file, because the JPEG has been sharpened. One sharpens a raw file in LR, ACR or PS at the first stage to eliminate the loss of acutance caused by the camera's anti-aliasing filter. This has nothing to do with lenses.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
canon optics?
« Reply #52 on: September 16, 2008, 07:02:02 pm »

16-35L = 4
50mm 1.4 = 5
24-105L =6
70-200L 2.8 =8,5

Leica 19mm = 8
Zeiss 21mm = 10
leica 28mm = 9.5
Leica 35-70 = 8.5
canon 135mm = 9.5
Canon 500mm = 9.5

Yes there are some good canon lenses but nothing wide.
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

BFoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
    • Brad's blog
canon optics?
« Reply #53 on: September 16, 2008, 09:23:34 pm »

Quote
You are not losing sharpness due to raw capture. Raw capture is how the file looks without any in-camera sharpening. JPEGs get sharpened as part of the processing happening in the camera. So it is normal for a JPEG to look sharper than a raw file, because the JPEG has been sharpened. One sharpens a raw file in LR, ACR or PS at the first stage to eliminate the loss of acutance caused by the camera's anti-aliasing filter. This has nothing to do with lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

um, precisely, that what i am saying. Read my words again.

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
canon optics?
« Reply #54 on: September 16, 2008, 09:25:18 pm »

I did and it's not, but not worth arguing about.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up